Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: McQueen on 30/03/2024 04:14:11
-
No-one, not even the most sceptical of persons, can deny the vastness of the Universe. Our own Milky Way Galaxy, is itself 105,000 light years across approximately, give or take a few hundreds of light years. By far the biggest single component of the Universe are the vast clouds of hydrogen that populate the Universe. The size of these clouds of hydrogen beggars the imagination, a single cloud of hydrogen might contain hundreds of thousands of Galaxies of the size of our Milky way Galaxy.
It is then a matter of some concern that the so called CMBR is so widely accepted as being the defining signal from the Big Bang. I have no problem in accepting that such a signal exists, what I have a problem with is its designation as relic radiation left over from the Big Bang. This does not make sense. Why? For one thing, electromagnetic radiation does not stop moving ever, it is always moving at the speed of light, it never stops. To imagine that the CMBR (relic radiation or not) would just hang about in one place is not justifiable. For another, we would have to accept that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent. Why? Because the present day Universe is made of hydrogen and the signal of the CMBR falls exactly within the Hydrogen spectra. So what are we to believe, are we to take for granted that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent and all of the signals in the hydrogen spectra being received on earth are due to the relic CMBR? Are we to believe that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent ? This is illogical reasoning, surely? We know, that the present day Universe is not quiescent, we know that vast movements must take place within the clouds of hydrogen gas that result in every possible signal over those generated by the hydrogen signal and even beyond. No, I put it to you that the CMBR is not relic radiation at all, instead it is very much a signal that is being produced by our present day Universe.
What substance then would point to the existence of the Big Bang and a finite Universe. I put it to you that the most significant indication of a Universe that had its birth in the Big Bang, would be Dark Matter, yes, with its very low energy of 10^-40 J it would be absolutely permeable to all matter, by the same token applying Heisenberg?s Uncertainty Principle as it applies to time and energy, it is possible to see that given their extremely low energy, the lifetimes of these particles becomes indefinitely long. Dark Matter, if it is made up of extremely low energy electric dipoles is a much better candidate for relic radiation from the Big Bang than is the CMBR. There would be no problem in such radiation being absolutely stationary. It would be the perfect evidence of relic radiation left over from the Big Bang.
-
For one thing, electromagnetic radiation does not stop moving ever, it is always moving at the speed of light, it never stops. To imagine that the CMBR (relic radiation or not) would just hang about in one place is not justifiable.
I'm not aware of any scientists who claim that it does just "hang about in one place". Pick any given volume of space and it will have CMBR photons both entering and leaving it constantly.
So what are we to believe, are we to take for granted that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent and all of the signals in the hydrogen spectra being received on earth are due to the relic CMBR?
Those CMBR emissions are currently proposed to represent the photons emitted when protons and electrons combined to create the first hydrogen atoms in the universe. Those photons were then stretched by the metric expansion of the universe to a much longer wavelength than they started off as. For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
-
Those CMBR emissions are currently proposed to represent the photons emitted when protons and electrons combined to create the first hydrogen atoms in the universe. Those photons were then stretched by the metric expansion of the universe to a much longer wavelength than they started off as. For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
This would be a wonderful explanation IF it is taken for granted that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent and emits no signal at all that can be traced and put into a graphical representation. This is especially a stretch of the imagination when one remembers the sheer, unimaginable size of these clouds of hydrogen and the violent interactions they are witness, to, the birth of galaxies and stars, the violent merger of Galaxies, the explosion supernovae and so on. Surely anyone with even a bit of imagination would be able to picture the birth of currents as the result of such interactions and the resultant micro-wave radiation.
The theory that I propose also uses an exactly similar theory, namely that Dark Matter represents photons born at the time of Big Bang, and undergo a loss of energy due to the metric expansion of the Universe. But in this case the loss of energy is so great that these photons (10^-40 J) born at the time of the Big Bang do not for all purposes exist at the macro level at all. They are all but undetectable according to the provisions of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
-
This does not make sense.
Your inability to understand a theory does not make the theory wrong, it just means you don't understand.
It is rather obvious that you are an anti-science troll. I really wonder what drives guys like you. For instance do you really hate science or is it just fun for you to try and rile up people visiting the site.
-
This would be a wonderful explanation IF it is taken for granted that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent and emits no signal at all that can be traced and put into a graphical representation. This is especially a stretch of the imagination when one remembers the sheer, unimaginable size of these clouds of hydrogen and the violent interactions they are witness, to, the birth of galaxies and stars, the violent merger of Galaxies, the explosion supernovae and so on. Surely anyone with even a bit of imagination would be able to picture the birth of currents as the result of such interactions and the resultant micro-wave radiation.
You missed this part:
Those CMBR emissions are currently proposed to represent the photons emitted when protons and electrons combined to create the first hydrogen atoms in the universe. Those photons were then stretched by the metric expansion of the universe to a much longer wavelength than they started off as. For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
-
Those CMBR emissions are currently proposed to represent the photons emitted when protons and electrons combined to create the first hydrogen atoms in the universe. Those photons were then stretched by the metric expansion of the universe to a much longer wavelength than they started off as. For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
I did not really miss the point that you allude to. What I am trying to get through is that there is practically no reference to sounds and signals that the Universe makes NOW at the present time. Unfortunately, like or not the CMBR falls right in the sweet spot of the signal width of the unbelievably massive clouds of hydrogen that populate the Universe. ANY signal is possible from these clouds given their size and the disturbances they are subject too. Yes, signals from the most widely occurring substance in the Universe would definitely have the same homogenous character that the CMBR is supposed to have, almost like black body radiation. What is difficult to believe is that such fine distinctions can be made as to separate the two signals: i.e., those from the present make up of the Universe and those from the CMBR. Further how convenient is the presence of this shell that the CMBR is supposed to reflect off?
-
Unfortunately, like or not the CMBR falls right in the sweet spot of the signal width of the unbelievably massive clouds of hydrogen that populate the Universe.
No, no it does not, because...
For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
ANY signal is possible from these clouds given their size and the disturbances they are subject too.
We can tell that emissions come from a hydrogen cloud by analyzing its spectrum. Hydrogen recombination does not produce that same spectrum as the thermal emissions from a hydrogen cloud (it's a fundamentally different phenomenon).
Further how convenient is the presence of this shell that the CMBR is supposed to reflect off?
What shell are you talking about?
-
There is little doubt that this is an interesting topic. Given the size of the massive clouds that occupy the Universe, some of them containing multiple galaxies, scientists are convinced that if the geometry is right, each of these clouds could have a black hole at its centre, so that is an interesting thought, not only do we have multiple black holes but we have ongoing multiple black holes which are constantly forming and disappearing. This brings us to the big bang event. From what we can gather from the evidence, the Big Bang was literally a singularity, the result of some cataclysmic event or series of events that brought all the matter into the Universe together, maybe in the form of an out of control Black Hole that ended with the event we know of as the Big Bang.
-
did not really miss the point that you allude to. What I am trying to get through is that there is practically no reference to sounds and signals that the Universe makes NOW at the present time.
There are.
They are the things to which the CMBR is the "background".
Nearly all the pretty pictures you see from NASA are of things happening "now". (At least; since the BB).
Didn't you realise that?
It does not help that you are proclaiming errors in something while making up nonsense like this about it.
Further how convenient is the presence of this shell that the CMBR is supposed to reflect off?
Nobody said there was a shell.
-
black holes which are constantly forming and disappearing.
Not much "disappearing" in reality.